Sub's Alternative Energy Thread

[jdshock]

I would not ask you to believe the minority, I would ask that if you are not informed, you should stay out of the discussion. If by "why do you believe the minority" you mean that I don't believe there is enough evidence to create public policy to combat global warming, the reason I believe this is because data prior to 1880 requires a leap of faith that is beyond my scientific willingness. BTW, my opinion agrees with 30-50% of the scientific community.

At what point are you "informed"? I believe the near scientific consensus that vaccines don't cause autism. I don't understand it, but I believe what the scientific community says. Because I haven't read the papers, is your stance that I should not support vaccinations?

You say that the information pre-1880 requires a leap of faith you're unwilling to take. Why do the majority of scientists accept the data if it is not trustworthy? What would it take for you to be convinced by pre-1880 information? Do you also not trust carbon dating?

Have you read the responses to the anti-hockey stick folks? I'm talking about the academic papers that have sided with the hockey stick theory. I'm just trying to find out how "informed" you are. I'm also interested in a citation for the 50% of the scientific community figure.

[wufan]

At what point are you "informed"? I believe the near scientific consensus that vaccines don't cause autism. I don't understand it, but I believe what the scientific community says. Because I haven't read the papers, is your stance that I should not support vaccinations?

Minimally, you need to review the original source data and assumptions used for policy papers in order to be informed. I'm not saying you shouldn't have an opinion or belief if you haven't reviewed the source. I'm saying you shouldn't try to convince people of your opinion.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Doug Elgin is a relative expert in his field. He said this would be another year of great basketball in the storied history of the league.

Yet I would bet several might think he is full of ****.

If you asked all the conference commissioners (a group of "relative experts") what the MVC was going to do this year, the vast majority would reach consensus that Doug is too optimistic with his words, and the MVC will be merely slightly above average for D1. I bet the group predictions would be fairly accurate, even if Doug's predictions turned out to be marketing mumbo jumbo.

The Jordan, and now this Elgin reference, are both terrible analogies to the climate change discussion, and I think you guys know it but just like being difficult.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The Michael Jordan example and the scientific consensus are both "appeals to authority".

Michael Jordan is an individual. @jdshock:'s whole argument is about the power of consensus opinion. These are not the same thing.

[Cdizzle]

They both indicate an important and relevant point: People say things that keep the gravy train rolling.

Most of the 'experts' in the Valley will say something similar in public about the league (a relative majority of relative experts within a specific field ie MVC basketball), because they have such motivation. Those outside the league are not beholden to the same paycheck or the same view point, even if they have somewhat less of an understanding of MVC basketball than the experts within the league making those claims, but somewhat more expertise than the general public.

All this is not to say that those in the greater majority are wrong. I just think it's fair to question results based on science that doesn't meet the 8th grade snuff test when said results are paramount to the funding of said scientists.

There is a lot of middle ground in most discussions that too few occupy.

[jdshock]

They both indicate an important and relevant point: People say things that keep the gravy train rolling.

Most of the 'experts' in the Valley will say something similar in public about the league (a relative majority of relative experts within a specific field ie MVC basketball), because they have such motivation. Those outside the league are not beholden to the same paycheck or the same view point, even if they have somewhat less of an understanding of MVC basketball than the experts within the league making those claims, but somewhat more expertise than the general public.

All this is not to say that those in the greater majority are wrong. I just think it's fair to question results based on science that doesn't meet the 8th grade snuff test when said results are paramount to the funding of said scientists.

There is a lot of middle ground in most discussions that too few occupy.

Apparently, we were wrong:

We are in agreement that money is not a good indicator of the correctness of science.

If the "gravy train" is the best indicator of the accuracy of the science, why aren't you worried that there is far more money to be made by fossil fuel companies?

[Cdizzle]

Apparently, we were wrong:



If the "gravy train" is the best indicator of the accuracy of the science, why aren't you worried that there is far more money to be made by fossil fuel companies?

I don't quite follow. But I would certainly take anything fossil fuel companies say on the matter with more grains of salt than my blood pressure will allow. I think it's very fair to be skeptical of all conclusions presented from parties whose sole livelihoods depend on said conclusions, especially when the data on which those conclusions are based is...... difficult to interpret and determine validity?

[wufan]

I don't quite follow. But I would certainly take anything fossil fuel companies say on the matter with more grains of salt than my blood pressure will allow. I think it's very fair to be skeptical of all conclusions presented from parties whose sole livelihoods depend on said conclusions, especially when the data on which those conclusions are based is...... difficult to interpret and determine validity?

I agree with this, that data presented with an agenda should be taken with a grain of salt.

[wufan]

Have you read the responses to the anti-hockey stick folks? I'm talking about the academic papers that have sided with the hockey stick theory. I'm just trying to find out how "informed" you are. I'm also interested in a citation for the 50% of the scientific community figure.

Here's one example. https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP...RR9lW0HjZaiVV3 About 80% don't believe the change can be stopped and about 30% don't believe that humans are the primary cause. Here's another study that will get you to roughly 50% of scientists agreeing with my take.

I haven't read a lot of the responses to the anti-hockey stick group, but I have read a few. I haven't read a lot of anti-hockey stick stuff, but I've read a little. I read several, but not all, of the hockey stick papers. It only takes a few hours to read them all, but the data and statistical analysis is pretty time consuming.

[wufan]

You say that the information pre-1880 requires a leap of faith you're unwilling to take. Why do the majority of scientists accept the data if it is not trustworthy? What would it take for you to be convinced by pre-1880 information? Do you also not trust carbon dating?

I don't believe that the majority of scientists are confident in the pre-1880s data. I've belt seen that question asked in a survey, and frankly it isn't useful information. That said, the data utilized to create temperature mapping is extensive and covers a huge variety of scientific disciplines, and I think most scientists, like me, would say that they lack the diverse knowledge required to digest, weigh, analyze all pieces of data. Here's the thing: Lots of data sets were evaluated based from geologic surveys (I know almost nothing about those), botonists, and ice cores to help determine the "average" global temp. Then some of those data points were dismissed entirely or partially. Some of the data sets were weighted very heavily such that they were the predominant indicator. All of these things are fine scientific tools, but I have concerns about the appropriate use of these techniques.

At least one paper I recall reading used the prehistoric ice core CO2 levels as an indicator. They then compared current CO2 levels and temps to run all of their back calculations, assuming that CO2 and temp were constant. They aren't constant and they stated that in the paper, yet one of the hockey stick papers used this as a heavily weighted indicator of past temps. Tree rings are often used, but their size is an indication temp, water, and soil content. Many climatologists rely on these as a direct indicator of temp. The idea is that by taking huge data sets and adding them all together, that these inconvenient issues will wash out. What it actually does is increase the error.

I do believe in carbon dating as half-lives are incredibly accurate over long spans of time. There are several concerns around contamination and false assumptions leading to inaccurate results, and if I were particularly interested in the age of an object, I would review this information and evaluate it to make my own conclusion.

[jdshock]

About 80% don't believe the change can be stopped

I don't know where you are getting that number. The study specifically says “Only 9% think almost no additional climate change can be averted, and 6% say they don’t know.” 18% think a large amount or all additional change can be averted. 42% think a moderate amount can be averted. 25% think a small amount can be averted. Where are you getting that 80% don’t believe the change can be stopped? By my reading, 82% believe we cannot avoid all or a large amount of the coming change (or don’t know), but only 40% think we cannot avoid a moderate or larger amount of the coming change (or don’t know).

Further, only one quarter of the scientists surveyed thought that “only a small amount or none of the harm can be prevented.”

Here's another study that will get you to roughly 50% of scientists agreeing with my take.

I’m not sure if you were trying to link another survey or if you were saying that the previous study got you to that 50% number

I don't believe that the majority of scientists are confident in the pre-1880s data. I've belt seen that question asked in a survey, and frankly it isn't useful information. That said, the data utilized to create temperature mapping is extensive and covers a huge variety of scientific disciplines, and I think most scientists, like me, would say that they lack the diverse knowledge required to digest, weigh, analyze all pieces of data. Here's the thing: Lots of data sets were evaluated based from geologic surveys (I know almost nothing about those), botonists, and ice cores to help determine the "average" global temp. Then some of those data points were dismissed entirely or partially. Some of the data sets were weighted very heavily such that they were the predominant indicator. All of these things are fine scientific tools, but I have concerns about the appropriate use of these techniques.

At least one paper I recall reading used the prehistoric ice core CO2 levels as an indicator. They then compared current CO2 levels and temps to run all of their back calculations, assuming that CO2 and temp were constant. They aren't constant and they stated that in the paper, yet one of the hockey stick papers used this as a heavily weighted indicator of past temps. Tree rings are often used, but their size is an indication temp, water, and soil content. Many climatologists rely on these as a direct indicator of temp. The idea is that by taking huge data sets and adding them all together, that these inconvenient issues will wash out. What it actually does is increase the error.

I do believe in carbon dating as half-lives are incredibly accurate over long spans of time. There are several concerns around contamination and false assumptions leading to inaccurate results, and if I were particularly interested in the age of an object, I would review this information and evaluate it to make my own conclusion.

You're clearly more knowledgeable on this than I am. When I see a list like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...st_2,000_years) that is two dozen papers supporting similar findings about past temperature data, what am I missing? I can read each of those papers, but I don't know what I don't know. If I read each one, I'm still going to miss things about the tree rings, etc. that you mention.

You believe some of these papers have a high likelihood of being incorrect, right? You have been very reasonable in your explanation saying that we just can't be certain. It's one thing to say the majority of scientists believe X, and I think they have too high a risk of error, so I don't believe X, yet. It's a vastly different thing to say the vast majority of scientists believe X, and I think they have too high a risk of error, so I believe X is false. I don't think you are doing the latter, but I talk with people who do that all the time (and people on this board), and that's not a logical step. It's illogical to say the hockey stick theory has been "disproven" if all we can say is "yeah, there's a high risk of error." It might be incorrect, but it's not been proven incorrect.

[Cdizzle]

It's one thing to say the majority of scientists believe X, and I think they have too high a risk of error, so I don't believe X, yet. It's a vastly different thing to say the vast majority of scientists believe X, and I think they have too high a risk of error, so I believe X is false. I don't think you are doing the latter, but I talk with people who do that all the time (and people on this board), and that's not a logical step. It's illogical to say the hockey stick theory has been "disproven" if all we can say is "yeah, there's a high risk of error." It might be incorrect, but it's not been proven incorrect.

This is a great take.

[wufan]

This is a great take.

I agree with this take as well. My issue is that policy in place ignores this take.

[jdshock]

I agree with this take as well. My issue is that policy in place ignores this take.

I don't think that's necessarily fair. If something is legislated it's because enough people (or important enough people) have decided that the impact is so great that it's worth acting even if there is a risk of error.

Most environmentalists' calculation is that even if there's only a 60% chance of being able to prevent the coming harm, legislation is worth it because the impact is so great. This goes to @JamarHoward4President's point that it's not necessarily an infinitely large impact, so there should be a greater discussion surrounding the size of the impact of global warming.

My post about the logic was only a criticism of individuals that say global warming/the hockey stick theory/whatever else has definitively been proven false.

[RoyalShock]

My problem with this issue is the same people (legislators and bleeding-hearts) who want to throw trillions of dollars at a 60% probability to prevent an unknown amount of potential harm also want to throw hundreds of billions at other national and global problems (poverty, hunger, energy, healthcare) with no guarantee of success and a record of mostly failure.

The result as I see it is a financial collapse. Pick your poison.

It seems to me that a deliberate and gradual retreat from low-lying coastal areas to avoid rising sea-levels would be major boon to the world economy. I know, it's an extreme proposition. But so is spending trillions upon trillions over decades on barely better than 50/50 odds of unpredictable benefit.

Disclaimer: I have not delved deeply into these issues, and am not as informed as others in this thread. But it's what I see happening.